People vs Piad

2016

FACTS:
Glen Paid was charged with 2 informations with the crimes of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
weighing 0.5 gram and illegal possession of dangerous drugs weighing .06 gram. While
accused appellant Villarosa, Carbo and Davis were charged in two informations with the crimes
of illegal possession of dangerous drugs during a party weighing .03 gram and illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia during a party.
Villarosa and Carbo were arraigned and they pleaded “not guilty”. Davis, however, jumped to
bail and therefore, was not arraigned.
Pre-trial and trial on merits ensued. After Davis was arrested, he was arraigned and with the
assistance of a counsel he pleaded “not guilty” to the charges against him.
The prosecution presented the Special Operations Task Force’s witnesses wherein it stated that
an that a confidential informant sent them an information wherein a certain Gamay, who was
later identified as Paid, was selling drugs along Ortigas Bridge in Pasig City. They conducted a
buy-bust operation in Piad’s house and he was arrested. The back up team saw Davis and
Carbo inside the house sitting on the floor and were surrounded with shabu.
They were all brought to the police headquarters for laboratory examination and drug test which
tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The RTC held that all elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs were established because
PO1 Arevalo handed the marked money to Piad, who, in turn, handed the plastic sachet, which
was confirmed to contain 0.05 gram of shabu. The elements of the crime of illegal possession of
drugs were also established because two (2) more sachets of shabu weighing 0.06 gram were
found in the metal container inside the pocket of Piad immediately after his arrest.

As to Villarosa, Carbo and Davis, the RTC found that they committed the crime of illegal
possession of drugs and paraphernalia during a party because they were surrounded by plastic
sachets containing 0.03 gram of shabu and different drug paraphernalia when the team found
them. The elements of such crimes were clearly proven because they were in a proximate
company of at least two persons and without any legal authority to possess such illicit items.
The court finds that Paid was guilty of the charges. Aggrieved, Paid and the others filed a
appeal. They argued that the chain of custody rule was not complied with because PSI Ebuen
did not testify on the condition of the confiscated items.
The CA affirmed the conviction of Paid, Villarosa, and Davis. Hence, the appeal to the higher
court.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a compliance of the Chain of Custody Rule
RULING:
Yes, there is a compliance of the chain custody rule. Since its requirement is essential to ensure
that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and
tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic
chemist, and finally  to the court.21 Section 21(a) of the ImplementingRules and Regulations of
R.A. No. 9165 provides:(a)
 
The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizureand confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s fromwhom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from themedia and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies ofthe inventory and be
given a copy thereof;
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall beconducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantlessseizures; Provided, further, that noncompliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, aslong as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
  
Evidently, the law requires “substantial” and not necessarily “perfect adherence” as long as it
can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved as
the same would be utilized in the determination ofthe guilt or innocence of the accused. In this
case, the CA meticulously assessed how the prosecution complied with the chain of custody
rule. When Piad was arrested, PO1 Arevalo marked the confiscated drugs at the crime scene.
Likewise,when Villarosa, Carbo and Davis were arrested, PO1 Bayot immediately marked the
seized items at the crime scene.The items were brought to the Pasig City Police Station where
PO1 Bayot was designated as evidence custodian.P/Insp. Sabio then prepared the requests for
laboratory examination and drug test, which were brought by PO1 Bayot,together with the
drugs, to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory. PSI Ebuen, received the confiscated
items forexamination. The said items tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Based on the foregoing, the Court issatisfied that there was substantial compliance with the
chain of custody rule.

Notes.
—
The identity of the dangerous drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing
that the items offered in courtwere the same substances bought during the buy-bust
operation.
(People vs. Dahil, 745 SCRA 221 [2015])
 There are cases when the chain of a custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the
seized items is allowedto be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest
for as long as it is done in the presence of theaccused in illegal drugs cases